Capitalism prioritizes capital formation and accumulation over labor (people) and land (the environment) because growth. this results in negative externalities that are socialized "for the good of the system" ( read those that own and control the system).
The issue of drone is indicative but actually minuscule in comparison to the effect of prioritizing economic liberalism, really bourgeois liberalism, over social and political liberalism, and favoring capital over labor and land. Human lives are priceless, and environmental degradation runs into the trillions.
This is not even genuine economic liberalism owing to market asymmetries that bias the working of markets aa information transfer systems, warping the signal. For example, socializing negative externality results in market price not reflecting true costs.
New Economic Perspectives
How Immoral are Laissez Faire Ideologues? Ask about Drones.
William K. Black | Associate Professor of Economics and Law, UMKC
See also
AP News
Travelers face chaos as drones shut London’s Gatwick Airport
Gregory Katz And Jill Lawless
3 comments:
Of course it is heavy government privilege for the banks that require that they be heavily regulated as well.
But I suggested this to Mr. Black: Regulate banks all you want but ALSO completely de-privilege them.
Think Mr. Black will agree? Or is the dirty secret of Progressives that they LOVE government privileges for the banks?
When you speak of "government privileges for banks," do you refer to private banks' ability to create the nation's currency out of thin air like the government does?
If so, then I agree that bank privilege is perhaps the #1 problem in the USA today.
do you refer to private banks' ability to create the nation's currency out of thin air like the government does? Konrad
Yes, even though 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors MIGHT* still be able to safely create SOME deposits, those would be vastly less than what the current privileged banking cartel with captive depositors can safely create, say, 1/5 or less**.
The reason is that bank deposits are also liabilities for fiat. But what good does that do the non-bank private sector if the non-bank private sector may not even use fiat except for dangerous (i.e. robbery), totally-inadequate-for-modern-commerce physical fiat, aka "cash"? Thus bank liabilities toward the non-bank private sector are currently a mockery of true liabilities.
*However, depending on how much government charges large users of its fiat, like the banks, for accounts at the Central Bank it might be unfeasible for 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors to create deposits AT ALL since the cost of holding reserves to back those deposits might be prohibitive. In that case, banks would serve purely as loan intermediaries between the cost-free (to a certain account limit) accounts of citizens and larger accounts eager to loan out their fiat to avoid being charged for it (i.e. negative interest).
** Depending again if government charged large users of its fiat nothing for the risk-free storage of their fiat or (as it should) at least enough to cover Central Bank operating costs for all citizens since only citizens have an inherent right to use their Nation's fiat FOR FREE to a reasonable account limit.
Post a Comment